Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1294/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1294 of 2011
=========================================================
GAUTAMKUMAR
MANILAL PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS BRAHMBHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MAULIK G NANAVATI, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Respondent: 1
None for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 10/02/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed with the following prayers :-
“(A) YOUR
LORDSHIP be pleased to admit the special civil application
(B) YOUR
LORDSHIP be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction
which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and be pleased to passed an
order by directing the Respondent to grant promotion in favor of the
petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer by considering the facts
and circumstances of the case.
(C) YOUR
LORDSHIP be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction
which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and be pleased to directing to
the Res. no 1 to complete the departmental inquiry prescribed under
the resolution dtd. 20/7/1993 framed by the Res. No.2.
(D) YOUR
LORDSHIP be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction
which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and be pleased to directing to
the Res. no 1 & 2 to promote the petitioner to the post of
Executive Engineer at least on Ad-hoc basis as per the G.R. dtd.
2/4/1983 & 30/10/93.
(E) Pending,
admission & final hearing of this petition, directing to the Res.
no.1 to pronounce the punishment/exonerate order in the pending
departmental inquiry till the final disposal of this petition.
(F) Such
other and further relief in the necessary and interest of justice be
granted.”
2. The
petitioner is at present serving as Deputy Executive Engineer in
respondent No.1 department. The grievance of the petitioner is that
as his name has been put in a sealed cover due to pendency of a
departmental inquiry, he is not being promoted as Executive Engineer,
though a number of his juniors have been so promoted. It is averred
in the petition that the Departmental Promotion Committee met on
06.12.2008. On 24.12.2008, the name of the petitioner was mentioned
in the seniority list dated 05.11.2008, and he was required to be
considered for promotion along with his senior and junior colleagues,
but his name was not mentioned in the promotion list on 30.10.2009
due to the above-stated reason.
3. Mr.B.S.Brahmbhatt,
learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the
charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner on 06.03.2007,
whereas the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 06.12.2008 i.e.
after a period of almost 2 years. The petitioner is going to retire
on 30.06.2011, that is, after about four months from today, and as
the departmental inquiry is still pending, his right of consideration
for promotion is seriously prejudiced, therefore, some directions may
be given to the respondents to complete the inquiry in a time bound
manner.
4. Mr.Maulik
G.Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that
if some time bound directions are given for completion of the
inquiry, the respondents would complete the same expeditiously.
5. Having
heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader, and as the petitioner is due to
superannuate on 30.06.2011, it would be in the interest of justice if
the respondents are directed to complete the inquiry expeditiously.
6. In
view of the above facts and circumstances, it is directed that
respondent No.1 shall complete the departmental inquiry against the
petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. If the departmental inquiry is not completed by
that date, the petitioner will be entitled for promotion, as has been
accorded to his juniors.
7. It
is clarified that while passing this order, the Court has not entered
into the merits of the case.
8. The
petition is disposed of in the above terms. Direct service of this
order is permitted.
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)
(sunil)
Top